A better question would be how many non-Muslims think the same, a lot of Americans don't seem to realize how much hate is directed towards their country...

Trust me a fair amount of us must know. Cant get on the internet without hearing or seeing something that doesn't talk about America as if its the only country in the world that has ever done anything questionable. And how we are the source of all evil in the world.

Sorry Lustful Bride, not trying to slight America, just attempting to draw attention to the fact that people probably shouldn't be blaming a specific religion for the current events, even if said religion is held as a banner during these attacks.

So far as I'm aware, you have the antichrist for a President. That kinda counts for something, surely.

I mean, I haven't looked in to it in any great depth, but those nutjobs seem pretty certain and I'm prepared to take their word. After all, is it just me who finds it suspicious that Obame has never publicly denied it?

So far as I'm aware, you have the antichrist for a President. That kinda counts for something, surely.

I mean, I haven't looked in to it in any great depth, but those nutjobs seem pretty certain and I'm prepared to take their word. After all, is it just me who finds it suspicious that Obame has never publicly denied it?

Technology and the works of mortal man will serve only to delay the inevitable when the stars are right and the Old Gods arise to consume all that exists. Yet those who were false and clung to false hope will see it all, while we loyal cultists will be devoured first.

Technology and the works of mortal man will serve only to delay the inevitable when the stars are right and the Old Gods arise to consume all that exists. Yet those who were false and clung to false hope will see it all, while we loyal cultists will be devoured first.

A better question would be how many non-Muslims think the same, a lot of Americans don't seem to realize how much hate is directed towards their country...

While there might be some religious undertones, I don't feel it's fair to hang up a single religion as the issue here, especially if you take the above in mind.

Why would we take into account feelings about the US and its foreign policy when discussing an attack on a French newspaper, based in France, written in French and only really widely available in France?

Now, France has its own ignoble history when it comes to its treatment of primarily Muslum countries... Algeria has already been mentioned and France's relations with its ex-colonial countries in North Africa mean it gets involved there frequently (it largely took the lead with regard to Libya for example). But does anyone here really think that this was intended to be a strike at the heart of the French establishment to take revenge for France's actions in Algeria? Or any of its other former colonies? If that's the case then why target Charlie Hebdo... a publication that was more than happy to mock the establishment? Why not some of the French Nationalist groups with ties to the OAS?

Let's remember that Charlie Hebdo has been attacked before. It's offices were firebombed in 2011 after it listed Mohammed as its editor in chief and had a picture of him on the cover. In 2012 it had to have riot police stationed outside after it did more caricatures of Mohammed. The editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, was living under police protection having received multiple credible death threats from Islamist sources and was personally named on a "Wanted Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam" hit list published by Al Queda's propaganda arm. It's worth noting that list coincides pretty much perfectly with the attempted, foiled and completed Islamist attacks that have occurred since it appeared.

So yes, maybe, for reasons that are virtually impossible to understand, someone who didn't like the US' foreign policy or France's own history decided that the best target to attack was an anti-establishment, anti-government (at least in its current form) very left-wing satirist. Or... which I'd suggest is far more likely... someone was offended by the way he mocked his religion and decided that the appropriate punishment for making fun of it was to be murdered.

No-one sensible should be using this as an excuse to demonize all Muslims or the religion in-and-of-itself (although it will be somewhat interesting to see if the people so aghast at "not all men" are equally intent on attacking someone who says "not all Muslims"). But to take the religious element out of it strikes me as utterly disingenuous.

Why would we take into account feelings about the US and its foreign policy when discussing an attack on a French newspaper, based in France, written in French and only really widely available in France?

My mistake.

Quote

No-one sensible should be using this as an excuse to demonize all Muslims or the religion in-and-of-itself (although it will be somewhat interesting to see if the people so aghast at "not all men" are equally intent on attacking someone who says "not all Muslims"). But to take the religious element out of it strikes me as utterly disingenuous.

Not trying to "take out" the religious element, just trying to convince others not to crucify it.

As an aside, I'm not really interested in discussing this any further, I really don't want to make enemies and you sound as if you've taken my little slip up quite personally. As I said to Lustful Bride, I wasn't trying to slight anyone.

I think many people in the West are under the impression that "Muslim extremists" are committing acts of terror because they are opposed to freedom and democracy.

Their tendency to advocate (and set up when they get a chance) religious authoritarian rule (which is pretty anti-democratic and opposed to freedom) may have something to do with this. The fact that paramilitary groups are usually formed to fight the non-democratic influences of the West doesn't mean they don't also oppose democracy and freedom as prescribed by the West.

Apparently the junior one of the three Paris gunmen has handed himself over to the police after they tracked him to a house in Reims, NE France (the city where the kings of France used to be crowned btw). He's just eighteen, they say. Two older ones who are brothers are still on the run.

Their tendency to advocate (and set up when they get a chance) religious authoritarian rule (which is pretty anti-democratic and opposed to freedom) may have something to do with this. The fact that paramilitary groups are usually formed to fight the non-democratic influences of the West doesn't mean they don't also oppose democracy and freedom as prescribed by the West.

That type is very anti-democratic. As you say they set up a religious authoritarian style government that restricts everyone's freedoms, especially the freedom of speech and press. they only want what their speech and what press they approve of to be free. Everyone else's speech and press is automatically restricted.

It's people like the three that did this horrible crime, that I have no problem having face the death penalty.

That type is very anti-democratic. As you say they set up a religious authoritarian style government that restricts everyone's freedoms, especially the freedom of speech and press. they only want what their speech and what press they approve of to be free. Everyone else's speech and press is automatically restricted.

And the question: how many of Muslims belong to that type? Some of my acquaintances say that it's the majority of them...

Your acquaintances would be wrong. Again, it would appear that the more violent and fanatical branches of Islam are in greater number because the calmer, more pacifist Muslims, which are in fact in greater number, aren't interesting enough to make the news.

Your acquaintances would be wrong. Again, it would appear that the more violent and fanatical branches of Islam are in greater number because the calmer, more pacifist Muslims, which are in fact in greater number, aren't interesting enough to make the news.

The fact that I know quite a few Muslims here in Brazil, and the fact that I have been invited to attend their Local Mosque and have interacted with many, many that while still adhereing to their beliefs, are very angry that the fanatics and violent people that claim to do what they do in the name of their religion are what people see as Muslim around the world.

One: The news, by definition, is unusual events. "1 569 999 997 Muslims didn't shoot up any office buildings today" is never going to see print.

Two: Look at that number. 1.57 billion. 20% of the world's population, distributed more or less globally. The fact that attacks like this are still noteworthy is strong evidence that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not violent fanatics.

One: The news, by definition, is unusual events. "1 569 999 997 Muslims didn't shoot up any office buildings today" is never going to see print.

Two: Look at that number. 1.57 billion. 20% of the world's population, distributed more or less globally. The fact that attacks like this are still noteworthy is strong evidence that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not violent fanatics.

We should also remember that one of the officers who was killed trying to stop these terrorists was also himself a Muslim. Ahmed Merabet, the officer who was shot at point blank after being injured.

Your acquaintances would be wrong. Again, it would appear that the more violent and fanatical branches of Islam are in greater number because the calmer, more pacifist Muslims, which are in fact in greater number, aren't interesting enough to make the news.

I am often torn about this. I know most muslims are legitimately law abiding folks who, much like everyone else, just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. But then I wonder... If that's the case why do tens of thousands gather in the streets chanting for the death of an artist who draws a caricature of Mohammed (like the Danish newspaper) in which over 200 people died during the course of the protests. Where are the moderates and peaceful Muslims when it's time to speak out against this kind of nonsense? And I know a few do, but more and more all I see are apologists making excuses, and liberals (I am one, very much so) in general saying it's just the culture we need to embrace it. But I side with athiests like Richard Dawkins who say no, we really don't. Claiming something is cultural doesn't excuse barbarism. Just because female genital mutilation may be a traditional practice in numerous countries doesn't make it ok, just like the selling of young girls to older men as wives or to settle debts, regardless of it being 'tradition'. I

Then I see things on twitter that literally bring me to tears, like the numerous stories on twitter under the hashtag #anapostatesexperience which details numerous otherwise 'moderate' families threatening children with death for renouncing Islam.

And intellectually I know -most- Muslims probably wouldn't do these things, but I still find these sorts of things viscerally disturbing and I can't help but start to feel the same way about those who consider themselves 'deeply religious' regardless of their religion. I've really come to believe religion has become a shield for a lot of angry mentally disturbed people to hold up and use as an excuse for violent and barbaric behaviors and beliefs and because it's a 'religion' for some reason we're not allowed to criticize it.

Ugh...

Sorry for the incoherent rambling. I'm just really upset by all this stuff and I'm not quite feeling up to making a coherent concise point right now.